On Tue, 2019-08-13 at 10:04 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-08-12 at 20:26 +0000, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote:
> > Comparing that build to a corresponding do-nothing build with Thud,
> > the time difference matches those three minutes where I have no
> > idea
> > what bitbake is doing now that it didn’t need to do before…
> >  
> > Hopefully these time degradations can be solved, because the
> > current
> > state of bitbake is barely usable. We also need to look into
> > possible
> > ways to improve the cooker output when it is running the setscene
> > tasks so it makes some kind of sense again.
> We talked on irc and you pointed at the commit things started to go
> wrong. Just to summarise things for the benefit of the list, this is
> some quick testing I did:
> "bitbake -p; time bitbake core-image-minimal -n"
> 30.0s 6c7c0cefd34067311144a1d4c01986fe0a4aef26
> 30.6s a0d941c787cf3ef030d190903279d311bc05d752
> 40.3s 7df31ff36892c2f9c65326b06b4c70 
> 42.2s a0542ed3ff700eca35f9195f743c9e28bcd50f3e 
> 45.4s 9983b07fffd19082abded7c3f15cc77d306dd69c 
> 76.9s master-next
> So basically the original changes showed a 25% hit but the
> performance
> of -next is dire.
> This is with no hash equiv server configured.
> It will vary depending on the target used (numbers with -sato for the
> above would be interesting for comparision) and how much was or is in
> sstate, they type of sstate mirror configured and so on.
> I really need to focus on getting the new code functioning correctly
> before we attempt to optimise but if nobody tests the new code due to
> performance problems we have a different issue. We also have a
> scaling
> problem with the hash server itself I need to fix to stop the
> autobuilder throwing weird errors. I'm therefore a bit challenged on
> where to start with it all :/.

I had a glance at the profile output from master-next and the problem
wasn't where I thought it would be, it was in the scheduler code. That
is good as those classes are effectively independent of the other
changes and hence are a separate fix.

I've put a patch in -next which takes the above test to 36s which is
close to the older bitbake.

Could be interesting to see how it looks for others and different



Openembedded-core mailing list

Reply via email to